I am in the market for a crop body wide angle and came across Canon selling them refurb for a bit over 400. I then saw the news of the 10-18mm coming out next month for a mere $300. I am most focused on the wide end, not the zoom. Heck, if there was a 10-13mm prime I would probably buy it.
With that said, if you were in my position, which would you choose and why?
The new lens has IS- that makes the choice pretty simple for landscapes. The old lens however does have a wider aperture, and that might make a difference in some cases.
Wait and see the reviews. The 10-22mm is an excellent lens, and i am not taking it for granted that this significantly cheaper alternative (with the added complexity of IS) outperforms it.
15Bit wrote:
Wait and see the reviews. The 10-22mm is an excellent lens, and i am not taking it for granted that this significantly cheaper alternative (with the added complexity of IS) outperforms it.
Canon's MTF suggests that it outperforms the 10-22 significantly, like the EF-M 11-22 also does.
I would probably save the cash and go with the newbie. I had the 10-22 for a while and it's a good lens. I've read multiple reviews online touting it as "L-Quality" which might be a bit of a stretch. I never shot that lens wide open. It was always at f/8 or f/11 when I used it and the IQ was fine. It was a rather large lens, though, so I'd opt for the smaller, lighter, IS-enabled younger sibling for a couple hundred bucks less. Chances are you won't lose too much if you hate it and decide to sell it.
I am leaning now towards the 10-18. I also do video work with my 70D but didn't feel IS is as necessary when you are that wide. The aperture was secondary to me as a will likely be stopping it down anyways.
510storm wrote:
Now.. the wait Yep, I'm crossing fingers it's out long enough for price to have dropped some (and decent reviews to be out) before having to pull the trigger for my Canada trip!
The 10-18mm is meant to be the wide-angle piece to the 10-18, 18-55, 55-250 STM lens kit. It's build quality is decidedly low-grade (plastic lens mount, even). I'd be a little concerned about how it'd hold up to heavy use.
IS on a 10-18mm is two stops past useless in my mind.
I'll take the 10-22mm any day for the superior build quality over image stabilization on an ultrawide.
You need to wait until the 10-18 is released and see real world comparisons of IQ. The 10-22 is pretty hard to beat IQ-wise and I would be surprised if the 10-18 actually equals or bests it. Plus the 10-22 already is tiny and light--my smallest zoom--so a little smaller size can't be much of a gain on shoulder relief. That cheap plastic mount is a bit hard to take. Albeit, I wouldn't mind IS on an ultra wide zoom. Every little bit helps...
I'm curious as to why people are opposed to plastic mount lenses... I've had a 50/1.8 II for probably 5 or 6 years. Because it was so cheap, I didn't really take great care of it. The glass is clean, which is all that matters to me, really, but otherwise, I've just sort of used and abused it.
Are there a lot of problems with plastic mounts? Is it just a wear and tear thing? I would think on something as small and light as the 10-18 and 18-55 it wouldn't really matter as there's very little stress on the mount.
There are tons of metal tripods doing tons of work out there.
It is true carbon fiber is the new hotness for light tripods, but carbon fiber and cheap lens plastic are two completely different materials.
It stands to reason that a plastic lens mount mating to a metal camera body surface is going to wear down. It also stands to reason it has a higher chance of breaking than a metal mount.
A plastic-mounted lens also means they most likely cut all kinds of corners on the rest of the lens... and the optical performance is only part of why I buy glass... I want a good user experience and hardy ergonomics as well. From the looks of the 10-18 and my experience with the other cheaper STM zooms (18-55 and 18-135) I'm guessing the manual focus ring will be terrible and it'll feel cheap... none of which are a problem with the 10-22mm. That crappy feel is also why I'd never own a 50mm f/1.8 II.
BTW, Canon put a metal lens mount on the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake at $160... which kinda shows you where they consider this lens to fall on the quality scale.
jbregar wrote:
There are tons of metal tripods doing tons of work out there.
It is true carbon fiber is the new hotness for light tripods, but carbon fiber and cheap lens plastic are two completely different materials.
It stands to reason that a plastic lens mount mating to a metal camera body surface is going to wear down. It also stands to reason it has a higher chance of breaking than a metal mount.
A plastic-mounted lens also means they most likely cut all kinds of corners on the rest of the lens... and the optical performance is only part of why I buy glass... I want a good user experience and hardy ergonomics as well. From the looks of the 10-18 and my experience with the other cheaper STM zooms (18-55 and 18-135) I'm guessing the manual focus ring will be terrible and it'll feel cheap... none of which are a problem with the 10-22mm. That crappy feel is also why I'd never own a 50mm f/1.8 II.
BTW, Canon put a metal lens mount on the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake at $160... which kinda shows you where they consider this lens to fall on the quality scale....Show more →
I think he was being sarcastic with the tripod jab.
Your answer, on the other hand, was really insightful. I hadn't thought about the quality of the rest of the lens being reflected in the mount. Interesting to hear some thoughts. Plastic mounts don't bother me as much as poor ergonomics and a poor overall build.
Basically, some great, professional quality lenses have plastic mounts. Like the Canon 24-70 2.8 version I, and Canon 35 1.4 L that was released in 1998:
"The pictures show that for many years lots of very large, very high-quality, professional-grade lenses have had plastic internal mounts. Guess what? They didn't all self destruct. In fact several of them are widely considered particularly rugged.
Looking at 7 years worth of data involving around 20,000 lenses I can’t find any suggestion that plastic mount lenses, in general, fail more than metal mount lenses. Sure, there are certain lenses that fail more than others, but not because they have a plastic mount."
STM lenses shouldn't feel 'crappy', as the focus rings aren't actually clutched to the focus cams. They're all 'fly by wire', as it were, somewhat like the 85Ls.
